MovieChat Forums > Jazz: A Film by Ken Burns (2001) Discussion > Worst exclusion?

Worst exclusion?

posted 14 years ago by arik-16
10 replies | jump to latest

What do you think was the worst exclusion of the film? In my opinion it is Dave Holland. Holland has all the strikes against him, as far as Burn's biases go: he's European, his big break was on Miles' Bitches Brew, and has done some free jazz. That's enough that I wouldn't be surprised of Burns had never even listened to him. So it's not really surprising that he got the boot. But his sound is very distinctive, his use of counterpoint, his work for big band, dynamic rhythm section, etc. As well as his large public success, makes him one of the more important jazz players today. He sure has made a bigger name for himself than most of the current players mentioned at the end of the documentary.

The closing statement of Jazz-- that jazz is dead, but another big thing will come one day, a jazz messiah if you will-- is so patently moronic; there is great, hugely popular jazz being made, it is just not Dixieland.

[–] hilgi-3 14 years ago

I think the whole "exclusion" and 1960 foward controversies are a little annoying. This was a documentary about the history of jazz and how various musicians built upon each others styles and innovations.

Sure a lot of innovations happend after 1960 but most of them can be traced to something from the past.In order to fully document each and every one would have doubled or trippled the show. Not that I have a problem with more but this show was a great history of jazz.

Would I have liked to see some of my favorites? Sure, I would love to see Jaco, Incognito, Spyro Gyro, Dave Weckl and Strunz and Farah. Even sub genres such as Acid Jazz, electronica etc. would have been nice to see.

All in all I still say it was great the way it was.

[–] TurnerJazz 13 years ago

Here's my problem with what you're saying. First, it's not only people after the 60's that were excluded. Second, they spent a lot of times following the careers of earlier musicians (especially Louis Armstrong) far after the end of their musical relevance to the development of jazz. Now, I'm conflicted about that because Louis and Duke Ellington were so hugely important to the development of jazz early on that I want to know what happens to them. BUT this happens to the exclusion of other musicians who were also significant that weren't even mentioned.

Consider some of the musicians that we could have learned about if they had skipped Hello Dolly:
Sonny Stitt (who claimed to have invented bebop, and some people believed him)
Joe Henderson
Woody Shaw (who was much more important in the resurgence of straight-ahead jazz than Wynton)
Michael Brecker (the most influential saxophonist of the 80s and 90s and maybe 2000s)
Oscar Peterson
Cannonball Adderley (his name was mentioned but that was it)
Pharoah Sanders
Sun Ra
Eric Dolphy (as important as Ornette Coleman if he lived longer)
Freddie Hubbard
Hank Mobley
Pat Metheny
Ray Brown
Phil Woods
Tom Harrell (who doesn't want to learn about a schizophrenic who hear's voices if he doesn't play his trumpet)
Wes Montgomery
Lee Morgan
McCoy Tyner
And you could go on and on...

So even though I was glad to learn about Louise Armstrong's success later in life or his stand against segregation or Duke Ellington being honored by the president, I'd rather have learned about Cannonball Adderley's influence on Soul music with Mercy, Mercy, Mercy or McCoy Tyner's influence on every piano player after him or Woody Shaw's popularizing playing outside, because this is a history of Jazz, not a history of early jazz musicians and their later careers.

___
"Santa Claus will kill you if you're bad." Michael C. Hall

[–] agentn121 14 years ago

Plus, this only came out in 2000. Hopefully Ken Burns will make Jazz Vol. 2 in 20 or 30 years. Then he can recap more from the 60's on.

[–] bluemilkbluemilk 13 years ago

probably nearly all jazz that happened outside of america and the way jazz has evolved and merged into dance music.

[–] bradford-1 12 years ago

I remember reading rumors about Burns doing a second Jazz series, to plug some holes that were missed in the first one, but World War II and Prohibition seemed to have occupied his time since "Jazz."

"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

[–] smulkin 12 years ago

Oscar Peterson definitely.

When you take into account his own albums and the albums of other artists that he appears on, his recording career is staggering. And doesn't even get a mention here.

[–] UnderwaterSmoking 11 years ago

Since I'm a drummer, I might be a bit biased. But I think the great jazz drummers like Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, Papa Jo Jones & Philly Joe Jones should have gotten more coverage. These guys were the most influential drummers who ever lived. They broke boundaries when it came to the drum set, and inspired modern Rock and Fusion drummers. But what what do they get? A 5 second name mention. I think that's a bit unfair considering their huge contributions. (There wouldn't be modern drumming without Papa Jo Jone's Hi-hat technique)

Plus, I was appalled by the lack of focus on Bossa-Nova. They didn't even mention the life of it's founder, Antonio Carlos Jobim. They also didn't focus on the most classic of all Bossa-Nova albums "Getz/Gilberto".

[–] jackeugenebarry 11 years ago

HELLO! i said HEEEELLLLOOOOOOOOO!
is ANYBODY out there?

there were many omissions, both partial and total, as are inevitable in a survey of a history such as this that seeks to be "exhaustive" or "all-inclusive" (both of which we know are an impossibility), but SERIOUSLY. SERIOUSLY!

NINA SIMONE.
(repeat 100 times)

DOUBLE-YOO. TEE. EFF?

Nina Simone.

[–] peterson_p 9 years ago

Charlie Christian, Lionel Hampton and Bud Powell. I haven't watched the whole series yet so I may get some of the first two playing with Benny Goodman.

[–] radiokaraoke 8 years ago

They are there, 4th or 5th disc in....

-------------------------------------

Out of my mind -- back in 5 minutes!!